CubColtPacer

I'm a firm believer that fundamentals are neccessary to win. I believe in clutch hitting, and I believe in giving it your all 100% of the time. When Ramirez doesn't hustle I get upset. The reason being that I believe everyone should always give it their best effort no matter what. It is just like any other job. I think everyone should give 100% no matter what. Whether you work at McDonalds, in an office, as a salesman, or play pro sports I think you should give your whole heart all the time. If you look at all the truly great players in any sport they all wore their hearts on their sleeves. Brett Favre(I hate him but he does), Cal Ripken Jr, Griffey Jr (remember when he ran into the wall catching a ball and broke his wrist), Jordan would play with a fever and still have games of his life. I hate guys who don't play up to their potential because they don't have the motivation. First off, I hope my post didn't come off as being too caustic. My 3 week old has been keeping me up all week, so I'm a bit edgy. I shouldn't generalize like I did. My main point was that the majority of the fanbase has not correctly identified the reasons why our team isn't good. They have an idea, albiet a very basic, general one, but until they realize that Ramirez's hustle is an annoying but not fatal flaw, or that it's not that Dusty should be fired not because he doesn't yell enough, but because he's a really bad manager with glaring tactical and strategic flaws, we're not going to see any change come about. MacPhail probably hears the complaining of the fanbase as being indicative of a fanbase upset about a losing season, and not a failed direction. That's a problem. This organization is pointed in the completely wrong direction. I'm not sure that most fans think that Ramirez's hustle is a fatal flaw in the Cubs winning. For fans who don't follow things like we do though, Ramirez's lack of hustle is one thing that makes them not want to be fans anymore, even if the team is winning. The Pacers of the past 2 years are a great example of this for people. After the brawl, the team played its heart out and snuck into the playoffs. The city embraced the team, and was behind them all the way. The next year, once again the team snuck into the playoffs, but there was a great deal of things like arguing with officials and not playing your heart out. The result was that the fanbase went way down even with the same number of wins. I think fans complain about Ramirez's hustle not because they think if he hustles it will magically lead to 10 more wins, but that a great deal of fans feel they would rather have a team that they feel they can support completely rather than a win at all cost mentality. Fans who follow things as much as we do on this board generally realize that we can't do anything about Ramirez's hustle, so we'd rather concentrate on the changes that would help the team win first.

Ditto. Edmonds is performing below his 10th percentile projection in PECOTA. That's very unusual. If his problem really is a treatable injury, he might be a bargain if the Cardinals don't bring him back. His projected OBP's for the next four seasons: .396, .392, .401, .419. I guess I'll never understand these projections very well. I really don't understand why it would project a 36 year old player who has had an OBP above .385 only once in the last four years can project a player to have above .385 each year for the next four years, including a .419 at age 40.

No problem..yeah, I acutally looked it up about an hour ago. Iowa finished 5th I believe, and WSU was 6th..ND finished 9th that year, but couldn't get invited. You may be right on 1998 though-they finished with 9 wins, but they didn't finish in the top 15 of the BCS-I'm not sure what the eligibility requirements were back then, so I can't be sure if they were eligible or not that year. That was of course the first year of the BCS, so they might have changed some things from then (Wow-that was a while ago-that was the Jarious Jackson year if I'm remembering right when he got hurt on the last play against LSU right before USC).

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them. I knew they wouldn't turn you media darlings down. :P Hey, at least ND has had a quality team every time-unlike BCS teams like Pittsburgh, and Florida State (of course, not their NC year-but they've made it at least twice when they were an average team at best with 3 or 4 losses on the season already). ND is forced to be at least on par with the top at large teams out there to get a bid, and their getting selected when eligible negates the disadvantage they have to other teams with never being able to sneak into a big bowl with several losses.

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them.

Yeah, this is a situation where I don't thing that he can be defended. Looking at the replay, he looks like he was safe, but that doesn't matter in this spot..the decision was just absolutely terrible.

HR's in the first 3 innings matter just as much as HR's in the last 3. What matters more is the situation they were hit in. Is a solo shot in the 1st to give a 1-0 lead worth relatively less than a Grand Slam in the 9th when you're losing 15-2? Yes, it matters more what situation they were hit in. I am a big supporter of Aramis, and I think that his numbers conclusively show he just doesn't hit meaningless home runs. I just saw an anomoly in the data that makes me think he could do even more-but that doesn't mean that I'm not extremely happy with his production already.

Good work Cubbies75..the only thing I don't really like that much is that only 3 of Aramis's 27 home runs have come in the 7th, 8th, or 9th-but I think you pretty well showed that his home runs have come mostly come in close games, which is what I personally already suspected. Again, good work on that.

I voted the last one-I don't think we'll get that much closer this year and may not finish the year closer, but I think we will get closer at one point.

Absolutely no control caused most of his problems, and the pretty bad defense behind him extended innings that exacerbated the problems. His main problem was that he couldn't get the fastball over the plate but it was drifting up and in consistently. That wasn't it come on, let's be serious for a moment. Prior's problems are more than just control. His fastball and curve are not the same pitches that he used to throw. His curve doesn't have that snap on it and his fastball isn't consistent in the 92-94 range that it used to be. He's done for. It's hard to tell how batters will hit his stuff now if he can't get the ball over the plate most of the time-I mean, they didn't exactly hit him very hard today-I saw only about 2-3 hard hit balls off of him all day, and 1 of those was caught and another 1 should have been caught. I don't know if his stuff is as good as before-probably not, but he still should be a much better pitcher then he is-and that is his control. I'd rather see him pitch-it's horrible to see him out there, but I think he needs the work if he's going to figure it out again.

Absolutely no control caused most of his problems, and the pretty bad defense behind him extended innings that exacerbated the problems. His main problem was that he couldn't get the fastball over the plate but it was drifting up and in consistently.

Is this speculation? They aren't going to pitch Mateo on Saturday now. Pat and Ron believe someone will be called up. I'm guessing it will be Guzman, but I haven't checked the last time he's pitched. Going back through the discussion threads, it looks like 8/5, or last Saturday was the last time Guzman has pitched. I think he is supposed to go tomorrow night, so I wouldn't be surprised if he came up and Mateo went down.

I think the idea was that Davis wouldn't have pitched around Aramis if 1st base weren't open. I agree with the not swinging at bad balls part, but Aramis probably would've seen better pitches without the double steal. If Pierre is going to be in a lineup, he'd be more valuable in the 7 or 8 spot, where "small ball" might actually help produce a run every now and then. Why MLB teams feel they need to put traditional leadoff types in front of power hitters is beyond me. Henry Blanco can score from first on a D-Lee homer just as easy as Pierre can. Exactly. I think that Aramis would have gotten a pitch to hit if it had been 1st and 2nd. Once it became 2nd and 3rd, Aramis needs to take the walk if they give it to him. I would agree that Pierre later down in the order might work better-I think the change became when teams started putting their best hitters, including their best power hitter in the 3 spot-they used to be 4 or lower, which means that the leadoff hitter was supposed to create a run before they came up.

This is one situation where both that attempt of a double steal and a walk have actually not been all that great for the team because it took the bat out of Ramirez hands..let's hope Jones can do something.

Yeah, he should have given up 2 runs that inning. How? Walk, flyout, Walk, flyout, flyout. The inning should have been over wildness or not. I don't know if the ball hit to Pagan was routine, but the first one definitely should have been an out. He was back to the wall and then just missed it, Murton would have had it. I don't know. I like Murton, but he hasn't exactly played a gold glove caliber LF either. No, but he does go back for a ball well. Add that to the fact he is a much better hitter, especially against lefties and you see why it is we pay Dusty the big bucks. Murton is definitely a better hitter against lefties-and he is probably better overall, but he hasn't been this year against Pagan overall. Also, games like this make me wonder how people can think the Cubs have a top 10 in the league defense. Haven't we seen people take extra bases and plays like those two flyballs all year long?

True-but so is the entire Cubs bench today.

Except it would be nice to see Pagan for Jones vs a lefty. True-I guess I was prepared for that, since Bruce already said on Tuesday that Murton would start on Tuesday and Wednesday and then Pagan on Thursday-so I guess I just didn't think about any possible lineup changes because of the planning that was already set out. Didn't it say somewhere in that thread(the one where Bruce mentions Murton) that Jones is suppose to hit Davis very well? I just found it. Jones is 5 for 11 against Davis in his career.

Except it would be nice to see Pagan for Jones vs a lefty. True-I guess I was prepared for that, since Bruce already said on Tuesday that Murton would start on Tuesday and Wednesday and then Pagan on Thursday-so I guess I just didn't think about any possible lineup changes because of the planning that was already set out.

Wow..we knew Pagan would be starting today on Tuesday, and that is fine. I guess everybody is getting the day off today though-at least they didn't have Neifi sub in for Izturis today and then for Cedeno tomorrow-which at least allows Theriot to get 1 of those 2 starts.

I think there is 2 options for a masher LF Carlos Lee - who is a borderline DH Alphonso Soriono - will he be worth the $$ and will be be willing to play LF again I'd prefer having Lee in LF and Soriano back at 2nd. Yeah, I know he makes Walker look like a defensive god, but then maybe Izturis has some value. His defense, combined with Lee doing what he does at 1st and Aramis' improving D could hopefully make up for any problems Soriano would have, and the other three big infield backs make up for Cesar not getting much done with the stick. Exactly..a player like Soriano at 2nd actually maximizes the value Izturis has with his great range. I think Izturis showed his range quite well last night (with the ball on the other side of 2nd, and then the ball deep in the hole), and Soriano can really be hidden at 2nd with two great defenders between him in Lee and Izturis. Izturis's bat could then be hidden because look at the rest of the infield including catcher-we'd still have I think the best hitting infield in the majors (Lee, Barrett, Soriano, Ramirez, Izturis). At least we'd be right up there-then we would just have to figure out what we wanted to do with our outfield, but we would only have to make a moderate upgrade there rather than a major one.

I don't see any mention of what they need to do to be eligible however. Perhaps they must finish in the top 8 to get there? I have to be missing something here. Soccer says they are guaranteed a spot if they finish in the top 8. I'm wondering if they can be eligible without being guaranteed a spot or if they must be in the top 8. My guess is that they have to be eligible now along with everyone else if they are ranked in the top 14 in the BCS (up from 12 last year-because the number of teams in the BCS went from 8 to 10). I think it was a compromise with ND-ND used to be eligible with either a 9 win team or a top 12 ranking, and had to be top 6 to be automatically in-now they have to have at least 9 wins and be in the top 14 like everyone else, with a top 8 bid getting them automatically in. I also like that they have given a possible path to minor conferences-any team from a minor conference that finishes in the top 12 will be automatically in-and 13th through 16th if there is a major conference winner that is ranked below that (which there has been just about every year). So it is likely that we will see the best minor conference team in a BCS bowl pretty much every year-which I think their best usually deserves.

I think it's a Dusty startegy. Give him X amount of games to prove himself and then he won't see the light of day after that. If Baker lets Cedeno start at 2nd for the rest of the year I'll be shocked and apoligize to the Baker man in person. I do think that having Cedeno at second is a waste and that it makes 3 bad bats in the lineup....maybe I should say 3 very limited bats in the lineup. If you mean start the rest of the year as any starts without a few off days, I would say yes. I think Cedeno will be sat down 4-5 games the rest of the way, but I think he'll be there the rest of the time. Baker has a pretty long leash on him-didn't even replace him that much when he was doing terribly in July. I personally doubt we will see Cedeno as the starting 2b next season, but I guess we will have to wait and see how it all unfolds.

One interesting note that continues tonight for those that thought the Cedeno delay to play 2nd just was an attempt to get more at bats for Neifi..since Cedeno has taken over at 2nd on friday, Neifi hasn't gotten off the bench-not once as a starter or a replacement or a PH in 5 games.

This is why Baker is paid the big bucks. You take out a hot hitter and leave in a 4-3 in CF. We all know that Pierre can pop one out to tie the game at any time unlike Murton who couldn't hit one out to save his life. As long as Pierre is batting leadoff, it will never make sense to double switch him unless there have been multiple double switches before-you can debate the double switch in general, but Baker really wouldn't have been very smart if he had done a double switch and taken Pierre out in that spot.

He has been benched until next season per MLB rules on mascots. No, I am not kidding. :shock: please elaborate.... It's something about the notice that MLB requires before introducing a new mascot. Apparently you can't add a mascot just on a whim, so they supposedly sent him down to the minors for some work (at least that was the Brewers explanation on it), and they will bring him back at the start of next season.